* I believe that the BCS ranking includes Miami at #8 even though the ACC representative was FSU at #22
** Louisville's #10 ranking while playing in CUSA was included in the BE ranking criteria
*** The WAC champ was NOT listed in the top-25 BCS ranking so I used a value of 26

Please note that this only takes in one of the criteria involved in whether a conference gets an autobid. Also note that the conferences that are 'hosts' (ie Pac10, Big10, Big12, SEC, and ACC) are not going to come under review.

Also, I've included a link to a BE messageboard that speculates how the BE is doing to speculated BCS criteria:

Here's a contribution. I looked up the WAC results for 2005. Boise State was the highest rated team (27 & 31 in Coaches' & Harris). However, the computers liked them a lot less (average = 43). An average of these 3 is 34. It doesn/t necessarily mean that they ranked 34 in the BCS, but it's somewhere around there. Nevada was the other WAC school that got votes (27 & 32) but the computers liked them even less (average = 49). If we use 34 for WAC 2005, their 3-year average falls to 17. Note that I could only get 2005 results for 5 of the 6 computers, so the computer average may be off slightly.

Are you sure that the host conferences do not come under review? My understanding is that they are locked into those bowls by contract, but that the BCS is not locked into those bowls. In other words, the BCS could change to another bowl as one of its 4 sites if it wants to dump a conference. For example, if the ACC has another bad year & its champion ranks 19 or lower, they would hae a 4-year average lower than 12. If the BCS no longer wanted them, they might be happy to leave a decrepit Orange Bowl with declining attendance for a more modern facility with higher turn-out. I don't know what the timing of such a move might be in relation to any contracts that the BCS might have with those bowls. My understanding is that the conferences have the bowl tie-ins, not the BCS itself, so the BCS is under no obligation to stick with a bowl if they dump the conference. but I may be wrong.

Here's a contribution. I looked up the WAC results for 2005. Boise State was the highest rated team (27 & 31 in Coaches' & Harris). However, the computers liked them a lot less (average = 43). An average of these 3 is 34. It doesn/t necessarily mean that they ranked 34 in the BCS, but it's somewhere around there. Nevada was the other WAC school that got votes (27 & 32) but the computers liked them even less (average = 49). If we use 34 for WAC 2005, their 3-year average falls to 17. Note that I could only get 2005 results for 5 of the 6 computers, so the computer average may be off slightly.

If you follow the link posted aboeve, Omnicarrier found out Boise's BCS rank (via Jerry Palm's site) was 29 - which is close to what you had proposed above. Just to be clear that this is only ONE of the THREE criteria used to determine BCS eligibilty. The other two criteria are overall conference strength and number of Top-25 teams.

No one really knows how they are going to account for these last two criteria. There has been speculation about it - if you are interested I can post it.

Quote:

Are you sure that the host conferences do not come under review? My understanding is that they are locked into those bowls by contract, but that the BCS is not locked into those bowls. In other words, the BCS could change to another bowl as one of its 4 sites if it wants to dump a conference. For example, if the ACC has another bad year & its champion ranks 19 or lower, they would hae a 4-year average lower than 12. If the BCS no longer wanted them, they might be happy to leave a decrepit Orange Bowl with declining attendance for a more modern facility with higher turn-out. I don't know what the timing of such a move might be in relation to any contracts that the BCS might have with those bowls. My understanding is that the conferences have the bowl tie-ins, not the BCS itself, so the BCS is under no obligation to stick with a bowl if they dump the conference. but I may be wrong.

Certainly a bowl may dump a conference if they wish. However, I believe that under this new BCS contract that the 5 BCS conferences are hosts cannot be unseated until the next contract come up. As to why only the BE and not the 'BCS-5 hosts' can come under review - you only need to read post #555 in this thread - it was in the BE media guide (reposted below):

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rule 3 States:
The Division I-A conferences have developed standards for annual automatic qualification for conference champions after the 2008 and 2009 regular seasons. The standards are based on performance during the 2004-2007 college football regular seasons. Such standards, however, will not prohibit the champion of any conference that has contracted with a Bowl to play in any particular game from playing in one of the participating BCS bowls. For example, the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions will, by contract, play in the Rose Bowl every year unless one or both of those teams qualifies for the National Championship Game.

The current BCS agreement runs through the 2009 season. The 4-year evaluation of conferences takes place in 2008. So, if a conference like the ACC fails to measure up in 2008, they could be given notice, accompanied by an opportunity to improve & if they continued to lag behind, they could be expelled in 2010. Any bowl could also be dropped from the agreement at the same time & could be replaced with another bowl.

This is a complicated scenario because there are multiple contracts involved in all of this. Some between conferences & bowls, others among the conferences themselves, indpendent of the bowls, & still others between the BCS & the bowls. One would have to know the details of any of these contracts to know what is possible. To show how complicated it gets, the BCS on its own website indicates that it has no contract with the Rose Bowl. The BCS operates via an agreement with the Big Ten & the Pac Ten, who in turn have contracts with the Rose Bowl. No direct contractual arrangement between the BCS & the Rose Bowl itself.

Certainly conferences with bowl tie-ins are in a better position & have some security, but it's very short term. Theoretically, the Big East could lose its automatic bid in 2008, but any of the others could lose theirs in 2010 at the latest. Not a big difference IMO.

The way I read it is that the BCS hosts cannot come under review or put on notice. They are essentially used as bookmarks for the BE and other conferences. In that if the ACC does poorly and the BE is right with them, then the BCS really don't have any ammo to kick the BE out - so to speak.

While a current BCS bowl can drop their conference affiliate, I would imagine that is probably not very likely unless some other conference shakeup happens.

It turns out Florida President Bernie Machen may lead the call for a college football playoff after all.

Two days after releasing a statement distancing himself from a pro-playoff stance, Machen told The Gainesville Sun on Wednesday that he has sought a spot on the agenda of the next Southeastern Conference presidents' meeting to lobby his peers toward a playoff.

Lack of support from college presidents has been cited as a big reason why the bowl system is in the form of the Bowl Championship Series.

Thursday, Coach Urban Meyer said he knew of Machen's comments and reiterated his call for a playoff system. He also showed some sympathy for those behind the BCS.

"How would you like to be given a job and say, 'Look it, you can't really ever get it done right, but you can have this job,' " he said. "That's basically what they have. All the best to them."

The Gators will assure themselves a spot in one the five BCS games with a victory over Arkansas in Saturday's SEC Championship Game. But a loss might keep UF from the big-money high-prestige bowls, despite an 11-2 year and an Eastern Division crown.

"I don't know anything about it," Meyer said. "I'm just trying to get a first down."

In an attempt to avoid a potential headache at the end of the regular season, the commissioners of the six BCS football conferences have voted to expand the pool of BCS at-large candidates from 14 to 18.

The new rule goes into effect only if there aren't enough teams among the top 14 of the final BCS standings to fill 10 slots in the BCS National Championship Game, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl and Rose Bowl.

The new rule was approved by commissioners for the 2007 season and will be announced by the BCS on Tuesday.

"The commissioners voted that in a case where there wasn't enough teams in the at-large pool, they would expand it by four," said Charles Bloom, associate commissioner of the SEC and BCS media coordinator. "If there were enough teams to fill the BCS from the pool of 14, it wouldn't be expanded."

Under the current BCS rules, champions of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, Pac-10 and SEC conferences receive automatic berths in the five BCS games. The top two teams in the final BCS standings will play in the Jan. 7 BCS National Championship Game at the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans.

Teams from the five non-BCS leagues (Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt and WAC) receive an automatic BCS berth only if they finish in the top 12 of the final BCS standings, or in the top 16 and ranked ahead of a champion from one of the six BCS conferences. No more than one such team from the non-BCS leagues can receive an automatic berth in one season.

The new rule doesn't change the qualification requirements for non-BCS teams, Bloom said.

If no team from a non-BCS league meets the criteria, then the four BCS at-large spots can be filled by teams that won at least nine games and finished in the top 14 of the final standings.

But here's the potential problem this season: Only two teams from one BCS league can play in BCS bowl games.

There are currently four Big 12 teams, three SEC teams and three Pac-10 teams ranked in the top 14 of the BCS standings. Two ACC teams and one team from both the Big Ten and Big East are among the top 14.

If the season ended now, there would be enough eligible teams to fill the 10 BCS spots.

But each of the ACC teams (No. 8 Virginia Tech and No. 14 Boston College) would be in danger of falling out of the top 14 if they lose again. The Hokies play No. 16 Virginia Saturday. The winner of that game faces the Eagles in the Dec. 1 ACC championship game in Jacksonville, Fla. Boston College finishes the regular season at home against Miami on Saturday.

Two teams from non-BCS leagues have a chance of reaching the top 12 in the final BCS standings. Hawaii, one of two unbeaten teams left in major college football, plays No. 19 Boise State at Aloha Stadium on Friday night. The No. 15 Warriors might move into the top 12 if they beat the Broncos and Washington on Dec. 1 and finish 12-0. But the Broncos, who would finish 11-1 by beating Hawaii, might not jump seven spots to No. 12 in the BCS standings, even after beating the unbeaten Warriors.

"I don't think [the new rule] really has an effect on Boise State or Hawaii," WAC Commissioner Karl Benson said Monday night. "This isn't anything that reduces or eliminates Boise State's or Hawaii's chances of getting into the BCS. Obviously, if they get into the top 12, it's still guaranteed."

The teams which would figure to benefit most from the rules change include No. 17 Illinois, which finished its season with a 9-3 record, and No. 20 Connecticut, which would move up in the rankings if it upsets No. 3 West Virginia on Saturday. The loser of the ACC championship game also might be eligible for a BCS at-large berth under the new rule.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum